Surge protectors to use with home electronics when grounding is not available?

Ah but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?

The statements are not contradictory. Manufacturers are held responsible for claims in numeric specs. So no protection claims exist there. Subjective claims made in sales brochures can say most anything.

UPS manufacturer does not list each type of surge and does not claim protection from each type in numeric specs.

However the manufacturer must claim a joules number. Where are those MOVs? Not stated. So what are they protecting from? Does the existence of joules mean surge protection exists? Of course not. But that is sufficient to suggest "surge protection" in a color glossy brochure. Now a retail salesman can claim the UPS provides surge protection.

UPS provides no effective surge protection as others have also noted. Any claims that a UPS provides protection are based only in subjective reasoning from color brochures. It says "surge protection". Therefore it provides protection from ALL types of surges? Nonsense. Since that joules number is all but zero - then subjective reasoning can claim effective protection even though numbers say otherwise.

Where does a plug-in UPS manufacturer made numeric protection claims? Well, the UPS does provide protection from a type of surge that typically causes no damage. That means it protects from surges that typically cause damage? Again, a conclusion based only upon subjective reasoning. If we assume all surges are same type, then a subjective conclusion can be rationalized. No protection claim from typically destructive surges exists in numeric spec sheets because no such protection exists.

Why does the manufacturer list joules - a number? When posting spin, numbers must be avoided. But that numbers is required per a standard. What does that joules numbers say? Protection is so pathetically small as to be non-existent. Near zero is not zero accordig to subjective claims on color glossy sales brochures. But the manufacturer cannot and does not claim protection where claims actually mean something: in numeric specifications.

Effective protection has a short connection to earth. Protection means energy must be dissipated harmlessly someplace. Will those near zero joules somehow absorb all that surge energy? Of course not. But absorbing all that energy is what a UPS must do to provide effective surge proetction. No wonder the manufacturer refuses to define protection where it matters - in numeric spec sheets.

My posts said same.

Read cited EE Times. Other sources exist including ARRL handbooks and QST articles. Concepts are also provided by publications from an industry benchmark - Polyphaser. Start with:

Is that 50 foot romex 0.2 ohms or 0.1 ohms resistance? Irrelevant. When compared to a relevant number (wire impedance), 0.1 and 0.2 are equivalent. Why confuse resistance with impedance? To create effective protection, impedance of an earthing connection must be extremely low. Polyphaser makes a protector that has no connection to earth ground. Impedance is so critical that the Polyphaser protector is mounted ON earth ground - zero foot connection.

A UPS will give backup power in case of blackout. It will also give filtering of noise, and protection against overvoltage and undervoltage conditions. The quality varies. The best type to get is a pure sine wave output with continuous inverter action. That is, no switching of power occurs at blackout time. That might sound confusing; no worries, do some research, and don't cheap out.

If I were to install a UPS, I would install a service-entry surge protection, to protect the UPS! :-)

Read the excellent reply by "bud--" where he gives the links to IEEE and NIST documentation. Good reading.

Oh dear. I don't see any answers there. I do, however, see a product advertisement. No matter, let's try again!! I'll use numbers this time, to make it easier. It will seem like school.

1) Does Romex make a 16 gauge building wire? Does the NEC allow it? You seem to be saying this is so. Kindly confirm. 2) Please explain how and why. Concise mathematical verification, with references, preferred. 3) Again, explanation requested.

By the way, I really like your quote above:

"...0.1 and 0.2 are equivalent." It's a keeper!

Which is what Bud does.

INALpublishedversio...

ceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

Both Bud's citations say why plug-in protectors don't provide surge protection AND why such protectors can even contribute to appliance damage. Bud promotes surge protectors and will not admit why he promotes them. Bud will post incessantly to make everything nasty. Bud is not an honest person. Bud will be challenged to provide a single plug-in spec that claims protection. Bud cannot because no plug- in protector manufacturer will claim, in numbers, to provide surge protection.

Bud's first citation from the NIST says what a surge protector does. It does not stop, absorb, or make surge energy miraculously disappear by clamping. Surge energy must be dissipated harmless in earth:

Bud says

The NIST says surges must be earthed. From Bud's NIST citation:

NIST says the protector must be earthed AND a protector is "useless if grounding is not done properly." Bud lies about what NIST says. But then Bud is here to protect profits.

Bud's second citation demonstrates what happens when a protector is too far from earth ground AND too close to appliances. Bud says read starting page 40. So on Page 42 Figure 8. A surge is earthed, 8000 volts destructively, through the adjacent TV. Protector too far from earth and too close to appliances.

Surge protection has always been about earthing before the surge can enter a building. Why will Bud post myths and half truths? According to Bud, you must buy $2000 or $3000 of plug-in protector - spend tens or 100 times more money. Take a $3 power strip. Add some $0.10 parts. Sell it for $10 in the grocery store. Or sell it with a fancier paint for $150 in Circuit City, Best Buy, or Radio Shack. See that profit margin? Bud will turn this discussion nasty. Profit margins are at risk.

Every responsible source says surge energy must be dissipated harmlessly in earth. No short connection to earth means mythical surge protection. Bud claims his plug-in protector will stop what three miles of sky could not. Bud claims his plug-in protector will make surge energy disappear. Ok. Then Bud can provide a numerical specification that claims such protection. After 600 requests - he gets paid for doing this - Bud cannot provide what no manufacturer will claim. No plug-in protector manufacturer claims protection from a type of surge that typically creates damage. Bud never provides that spec because that specification does not exist. Bud hopes you will believe his half truths. Bud's citations even show how plug-in protectors contribute to appliance damage - 8000 volts earthed destructively through an adjacent TV =96 Page 42 Figure 8.

Effective surge protection is earthing - as the NIST citation says repeatedly. Even your cable company will recommend removing that plug- in protector. A 'magic box' protector does not claim to provide protection. Cable is earthed where it enters the building. Plug-in protector does what - clamp both surges and TV signals to nothing? If it stops surges, it also stops TV signals. Worse, Page 42 Figure 8 - it can even earth a surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. Protection is about earthing before a surge can enter a building.

Bud spins a myth. Even I would sell plug-in protectors to people so naive as to learn technology from a sales promoter. Take a $3 power strip. Add some 10 cent parts. Sell it for $25 or $150 to the naive. Even responsible companies will sell these. But only responsible companies sell the protectors that actually contribute to protection. That is not who Bud promotes for. Who makes the effective protectors? Square D, GE, Siemens, Keison, Leviton, Cutler- Hammer, Intermatic - etc. Who only sells scam plug-in protectors? Belkin. Monster Cable. Equivalent circuit in a $150 Monster Cable product is also in a $10 protector in the grocery store. Profit margins that Bud must protect.

Bud's citations show what a plug-in protector might do AND why plug- in protector can even contribute to appliance damage. Bud's citations all state that the protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Bud ineffective protectors promoted by Bud don't have earthing. No earth ground means no effective protection. How will Bud protect those profit margins? He will post insults.

Do you determine a good product by tone? Or do you look at facts. Every citation posted even by Bud says the protector must have that earthing connection. Bud's citations even show how appliances get damaged when the protector is too close to electronics and too far from earth ground - Page 42 Figure 8. Bud will say anything to confuse reality on that page. Bud also hopes you don't read page 19 of 24 in his NIST citation:

Bud says grounding is not necessary when NIST says otherwise. Bud says clamping to nothing will make surge energy disappear. Bud must say anything to protect obscene profit margins.

Why are you being an ass? Technical answers were provided in both 'top of the front page' articles in Electrical Engineering Times. Apparently you are being funny by not reading them. Articles are entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients". What is discussed? Earthing. Impedance. Engineering formulas are provided. Things that provide surge protection. Not discussed are plug-in protectors and that UPS.

Where is product advertisement? You asked for advanced technical numbers. Formulas are there. No product advertisement was provided. Anoher fool's joke.

Polyphaser does not sell earth ground. Few if any Polyphaser products are discussed in Polyphaser application notes. Those legendary app notes discuss what provides protection - earthing. Since Charlie says, "I do, however, see product advertisement", then Charlie did not read - just posted to be funny.

Things that provide surge protection have a dedicated and short connection to earth ground. Scams promoted by Bud take a $3 power strip, add some 10 cent parts, and sell for an obscene $25 or $150. Protectors that don't even claim to provide protection have product names such as APC, Belkin, Tripplite, and Monster Cable. No earth ground means, well, what did the NIST say?

What does every responsible source state as necessary for surge protection? That connection to earth ground. For a low impedance connection, an earth ground wire from the protector is typically 'less than 10 feet' - no sharp bends, no splices, etc. Damage averted only when surge energy is dissipated harmlessly in earth. Plug-in protectors or a UPS will somehow make that surge energy disappear? Myth. Charlie thinks he is funny by inventing 16 gauge AC electric romex. Charlie made a joke. Oh dear. Its not even funny.

Charlie forgets to mention some facts. A UPS that does filtering costs $500 and higher. The computer grade UPS typically outputs, well, 120 volts from this UPS is two 200 volts sine waves with a spike of up to 270 volts between those sine waves. That is noise filtering and protection from overvoltage? Of course not. Computer grade UPS manufacturer quietly warn of damage to small electric motors if powered by this UPS.

Of course, computer power supplies are so resilient as to make that poor UPS power irrelevant. Where is the noise filtering and protection from overvoltages? Inside the computer=92s power supply.

Meanwhile, Bud's citations state why the UPS and power strips do not even claim to provide surge protection:

Page 42 Figure 8 - an adjacent TV destroyed when the adjacent protector earthed 8000 volts through that TV. Damage because the protector was too far from earth ground and too close to the appliance.

From the NIST:

Bud says a protector needs no earth> In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the

What provides the protecti> Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or

IEEE Standard 1100 (the Emerald Book) says:

How curious. This IEEE Standard repeats what is required for surge protection. A single point earth ground. Where is the plug-in protector recommended? Not found in IEEE Standard - where IEEE recommendations are located.

Let's see. What does Sun Microsystems demand for protection of their servers?

Bud's citations contradict his and Charlie's statements. Numerous IEEE Standards also define earthing as the surge protection. Sun Microsystem's Planning Guide for the Server Room also says protectors must divert (clamp) surges to earth ground.

US Air Force says demand only protectors that connect at the service entrance to earth ground. From QST July 2002 "Lightning Protection for the

Just another source, not selling plug-in protectors, that defines protection in terms of earth ground and low impedance connections to that earth ground. Just another responsible source that contradicts Bud and Charlie Siegrist.

Dr Kenneth Schneider:

Must the OP rewire his two wire receptacles to three wire as Bud and Charlie recommend? Of course not. Every responsible source says protection is about earthing where the surge might enter the building. Upgraded earthing at the breaker box and one 'whole house' protector provides massive protection .... that provides "only

99.5-99.9% protection". How much protection does a plug-in protector or UPS claim to provide? None. Rewire the house for 3 wire receptacles so that ineffective plug-in protectors can be used? The effective protector costs about $1 per protected appliance AND requires no household rewiring. The 'whole house' protector for about $1 per protected appliance actually provides protection per NIST, IEEE, US Air Force, Sun Microsystem, ARRL (QST Magazine), Polyphaser, and so many other sources from even 100 years ago.

Only a fool would buy Charlie's UPS for surge protection. Charlie - where is that UPS numeric spec that lists each type of surge and protection from that surge. Oh. Like Bud, you cannot find that spec. Why should anyone believe you. Because you are a nice guy? Nice guys with that big toothy smile also make untrue claims (marketing).

Charlie would also have the OP rewire his building with 3 wire receptacles - as if that provides surge protection. The superior surge protection also means no such rewiring AND spending tens or 100 times less money.

Would it be feasible to use two UPS devices and switch between them?

For example,

charge UPS #1 disconnect UPS #1 from mains power computer from UPS #1 while charging UPS #2 when UPS #1 battery is dead, disconnect UPS #2 from mains and switch to UPS #2...

I'm guessing it takes longer to charge than discharge but adding more UPS could take care of that...

Would the constant cycling of the batteries make this impractical?

bud-- Inscribed thus:

I wish I was as sure picking lottery numbers ! ;-)

--
Best Reagrds:
                        Baron.

Sorry, I asked you for answers to very simple questions about your own statements. I did not ask for web references, except as concise and specific support of your answers. No answers were provided, given two opportunities. You have failed. You have proven that you have no concept of the subject of which you speak. Bye now.

. Embarrassing questions never answered by w_:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"? .

. w_ is not an intelligent person. Poor w_ is not pleased when someone challenges his drivel. .

. The IEEE guide says plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing. .

. What does the NIST guide really say? Plug-in suppressors are the "easiest solution". .

. The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable service. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.

Poor w_ thinks the plug-in suppressor at TV1 damages TV2. Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V.

The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The problem is the wire connecting the cable entry block to the power service 'ground' is too long. The IEEE guide says in that case "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in]protector." .

. The last plug-in suppressor I bought (about $25) had 1 MOV that was

1475J, 75,000A and 2 that were 590J 30,000A. Provide a source for a 75,000A/1475J MOV for $0.10. .

. w_ is fond of inventing opinions and attributing them to others. .

. To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association with surge protectors is I have some.

Specs have been provided often (like above), but the village idiot just ignores them. .

. w_ is not just your normal troll. He is a religious fanatic.

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not well earthed) can not possibly work.

Unfortunately for w_, the IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING not earthing.

Being evangelical in his belief in earthing, w_ trolls google-groups for "surge" to paste his religious tract to convert the heathens. Unfortunately this newsgroup must be mostly pagans.

The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.

There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics, and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing.

Never answered - simple questions:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?

- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?

- Why does the IEEE guide say in the example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?

- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."

- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.

--
bud--

Bud is my troll who follows me everywhere posting insults. Insult are his only proof. His citations even show how a plug-in protector causes damage. It is his job to promote obscenely profitable plug-in protectors. Bud cannot even admit who he represents.

Let's see what UL approved protectors might do. Bud's standard response: these UL approved protectors are not UL approved. Nonsense. UL1449 standard have existed since 28 Aug 1985. Recent scary pictures from fire departments, fire marshal, etc occur when a plug-in protector (that meets UL standards) is constructed to maximize profits; not provide protection:

A protector that clamps to nothing must absorb surge energy. Where do you put this protector? On a carpet behind furniture? Adjacent to a desktop of papers? That energy must be dissipated someplace. If not in earth, then were does surge energy get dissipated? Scary pictures demonstrate another problem with plug-in protectors.

Problem made worse when the occupant only has two wire receptacles. Bud still recommends his plug-in protectors on two wire receptacles. After all, a plug-in protector works by clamping to nothing.

From Bud's citati> A very important point to keep in mind is that your

Bud says his protector works, instead, by clamping to nothing. It has no earth ground. The OP also has no earth ground. Bud says that is not a problem. Bud's protectors work by clamping to nothing. Somehow surge energy gets stopped, absorbed, or magically disappears? Bud pretends that surge energy does not exist - profits are at risk.

Every responsible source says protection is achieved by earthing. Bud says a protector works by 'clamping to nothing' which means it can work on two wire receptacles. Meanwhile, other responsible sources show a plug-in protector without 'whole house' protection means a plug- in protector can even contribute to appliance damage - 8000 volts through the adjacent TV - or scary pictures.

OP asked about surge protection when only two wire receptacles exist. Only solution is a same solution done wherever damage is not an option. One 'whole house' protector with breaker box earthing upgraded to meet and exceed post 1990 National Electrical Code requirements. Installing a UPS or power strip that 'clamps to nothing' will somehow stop or absorb that surge energy? Hardly.

Every responsible source (including those cited by Bud) state that earthing - not a protector - provides that protection. Plug-in protectors (built to maximize profits) can even create scary pictures. What kind of protection is that? Protectors recommended by Bud.

The typical UPS takes maybe 8 hours to charge the battery - and discharge in 10 minutes. Furthermore batteries in a computer grade UPS are not constructed for numerous discharge cycles. Batteries and recharge circuits will be the cheapest possible - to provide backup power maybe once a year.

What are you trying to accomplish? Surge protection or brownout protection? A computer power supply must keep a computer working even when voltage drops so low that incandescent bulbs are at less than 40% intensity. A standard even required in Intel specs. Does your computer power supply meet minimal standards? How often do lights dim to less than 40%?

If surges are so severe as to operate electronics disconnected from the grid, then a superior solution (that costs less money) is to operate from a Honda generator. But again, what is the problem? What are you trying to solve?

--
Correct.

. It is the usual w_ post - mischaracterizing sources and attempting to discredit opponents. .

. From w_'s hanford link below: "Underwriters Laboratories Standard UL 1449, *2nd Edition*, Standard For Safety For Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors, now requires thermal protection in power strips. This protection is provided by a thermal fuse located next to the MOV."

From w_'s Gaston Co. link: "More modern surge suppressors are manufactured with a Thermal Cut Out mounted near, or in contact with, the MOV that is intended shut the unit down overheating occurs [sic]."

If w_ had any knowledge of the field he would know UL 1449, *2nd Ed* was effective in 1998.

w_ is too stupid to know the difference between a creation date and a revision date.

And none of the links even says a damaged suppressor was UL listed. .

, Provide dates. ,

. w_ refuses to understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that required thermal disconnects for overheating MOVs. That was

1998. There is no reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a problem with suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in effect since 1998. But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.

-------------- If there is no service panel suppressor and a large surge comes in on power wires, at about 6,000V there will be arc-over from the hot busses to the panel enclosure/ground/earth (which is also connected to the neutral in US services). After initiation, the arc voltage is hundreds of volts. There is also arc-over in receptacles at about 6,000V

Because of arc-over and branch circuit impedance to surges, surprisingly little surge current can reach a plug-in suppressor. That means surprisingly little energy can reach a plug-in suppressor.

(A technical paper from the author of the NIST guide is available if anyone is interested.)

--------------- The author of the NIST guide has written "In Fact, the major cause of TVSS [surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an unusually large surge." Overvoltage is much longer duration than a surge. Causes could be an open neutral or primary wire dropping on

120/240V secondary wires. .

. If poor w_ could think he could figure out how plug-in suppressors work. They do not protect by absorbing energy. As explained above, they absorb surprisingly little energy unless they are very near the service panel. .

. If poor w_ could read he could find out what I really said. (But that might ruin the rant.) .

. It is the religious belief in earthing.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. The IEEE guide explains how they work for anyone who is able to think.

Still never seen - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Still never answered - embarrassing questions:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?

- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?

- Why does the IEEE guide say in the example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?

- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."

- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.

- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?

- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s own hanford link said?

- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said was UL1449 *2ed*?

- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged suppressor had a UL label?

--
bud--

So where is this proof? Current is coming down any or all AC wires is still seeking earth ground. Clamping the hot and neutral together only means the same voltage is on both wires - still clamped to nothing - surge still seeking earth ground. That is the point of Page

42 Figure 8. The protector clamped all those wires together. Therefore the surge was clamped to earth 8000 volts destructively via the adjacent TV.

Clamping two wires together does not dissipate the energy. Surge energy must be dissipated somewhere. A clamp to something connects that surge energy to what dissipates that surge energy. Clamping the hot and neutral wire means surge energy remains on both wires - unclamped - still seeking earth ground.

If plug-in protectors work as you have assumed, then where is this manufacturer numeric spec that lists each type of surge and protection from that surge? No such spec exists because clamping to nothing does not protect from the typically destructive surge. Clamping all wires together means the surge was clamped to nothing, OR (Page 42 Figure

8) the adjacent TV did the clamping - 8000 volts destructively.

Its called a protector. So you *know* it protects from all types of surges? With or without plug-in protectors, a properly earthed 'whole house' protector is required - which is why telcos don't waste money on plug-in protectors.

To poster: I've snipped material that I feel is confusing, leaving only answers to singular questions. I think it reads better this way.

For only one reason. You have two critical and redundant systems.

After an outage, the UPS battery will charge while simultaneously supplying the load. During normal operation, the UPS battery will be on a float charge.

You've got that backwards. The UPS will discharge only in the event of a power outage. If you've chosen a unit appropriate to your load, recharge time will be significantly shorter than discharge time.

You need to read some reference material. I recommend the library, but there are some internet resouces that are quite good. Whatever you do, stay away from the rambling misinformation on the "polyphasor" site. But you probably already knew that :-)